People v. Bryant
2016 IL App (5th) 140334
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- John L. Bryant was charged (accountability) in the 2006 murder of Christopher Gandy; co-defendants included Rocky Maki and Lisa Bryant. A jury convicted Bryant in 2006; conviction was reversed on direct appeal for ineffective assistance and remanded for retrial.
- At a 2011 retrial, after co-defendant Lisa testified for the State, Bryant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count for a joint recommendation of 28 years (with 3 years supervised release). He was admonished and stated he was taking one Klonopin pill daily but that it did not impair him.
- Bryant filed two motions to withdraw his plea claiming (1) he was impaired by prescribed Klonopin and emotionally distraught when he pled, and (2) trial counsel told him he could withdraw the plea within 3–4 days. The trial court denied both motions after hearings. The denial was affirmed; later the appellate court vacated the denial once for Rule 604(d) noncompliance and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand Bryant renewed his motion, renewing the Klonopin/competency argument and the alleged counsel promise. The trial court again denied relief, finding Bryant competent and the counsel-promise claim false; Bryant appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw the plea (finding no manifest injustice, no prejudice from Rule 402 omissions), but vacated the negotiated sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court accepted the plea and waived a PSI without making the statutorily required on-the-record finding about Bryant’s criminal history under 730 ILCS 5/5-3-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bryant was mentally fit / plea knowing and voluntary given Klonopin and emotional distress | State: Record shows defendant repeatedly represented he understood proceedings; counsel and judge observed competence; no facts raised substantial doubt | Bryant: Klonopin ‘‘clouded and altered’’ his mind at plea, and extreme emotional distress after co-defendant’s testimony prevented a knowing, voluntary plea | Court: Affirmed trial court; defendant failed to prove lack of fitness or manifest injustice; findings not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether trial court failed to comply with Rule 402 admonishments and whether that error requires vacatur | State: Any Rule 402 omissions were harmless; defendant knew consequences and no outside promises induced plea | Bryant: Court failed to advise range and right to persist in not guilty plea etc., so plea was not knowingly entered | Court: Omitted admonishments (sentencing range, right to persist, inquiry re: extra promises) were harmless here; no prejudice shown; plea voluntary |
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged promise (automatic withdrawal within 3–4 days) invalidates plea | State: Counsel denied making such promise; record and plea form contradict defendant | Bryant: Counsel told him he could withdraw plea in 3–4 days, so plea induced by false promise | Court: Found defendant’s claim not credible; counsel denied it; court called claim patently false; no relief granted |
| Whether waiver of PSI and lack of on-record finding re criminal history requires resentencing | State: Agreed that statutory requirement not satisfied | Bryant: Agreed relief required (or at least contested appropriateness of sentence) | Court: Vacated sentence and remanded for new sentencing hearing so trial court can consider defendant’s criminal history per 730 ILCS 5/5-3-1 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jamison, 197 Ill. 2d 135 (fitness presumed; defendant must show facts raising real doubt about capacity)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (motion-to-withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 402 substantial compliance standard)
- People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240 (failure to admonish under Rule 402 requires prejudice or plain-error analysis)
- People v. Krantz, 58 Ill. 2d 187 (omitted sentencing-range admonition may be harmless where defendant clearly understood possible punishment)
- People v. Hale, 96 Ill. App. 3d 187 (following Krantz; reversal only if defendant actually unaware of possible punishment)
- People v. Walton, 357 Ill. App. 3d 819 (failure to comply with 730 ILCS 5/5-3-1 requires vacatur and remand for resentencing)
- People v. Evans, 273 Ill. App. 3d 252 (sentencing judge must be informed of defendant’s criminal history before accepting negotiated plea)
- People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (Rule 402 adopted to ensure guilty pleas are voluntary and intelligent)
- People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449 (prejudice requirement for Rule 402 failures reiterated)
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (same point on Rule 402 and prejudice)